ABSTRACT
Vertical reading training (VRTr) increases reading speed (RS) significantly in patients with hemianopic field defects (HFD). We ask, how eye movements (EM) contribute to this improvement and whether EM-behavior is affected by the side of HFD. Twenty-one patients, randomly assigned to VRTr or horizontal RTr, trained reading single lines from a screen at home, for 4 weeks. In the clinic, we recorded EM while reading short sentences aloud from a screen before training (T1), directly (T2) and 4 weeks afterwards (T3). RS-screen was correlated with RS during reading printed paragraphs (RS-print) to assess the transfer to everyday life. RS-screen and RS-print correlated positively (horizontal: r > 0.8, vertical: r > 0.9) at all times. Vertical RS did not exceed horizontal RS. We found significant negative correlations of EM-variables and RS-print: in right-HFD with the number of forward saccades (T1: r = - 0.79, T2: r = - 0.94), in left-HFD with the steps during return sweeps (T1: r = - 0.83, T2: r = - 0.56). Training effects remained stable at T3. EM-improvement was specific for the RTr and the side of the HFD: in right-HFD fewer forward saccades after VRTr, in left-HFD fewer steps during return sweeps after HRTr. RTr on a screen transfers to reading printed text in real-life situations.Trial registration: The study was retrospectively registered in the German Clinical Trials register: DRKS-ID: DRKS00018843, March 13th, 2020.
Subject(s)
Eye Movements , Hemianopsia , Humans , Visual Fields , Reading , SaccadesABSTRACT
HYPOTHESIS: Patients with hemianopic field defects (HFD) might benefit from reading text in vertical orientation if they place the text in the seeing hemifield along the vertical midline. METHODS: We assigned 21 patients with HFD randomly to either vertical or horizontal reading training. They trained reading single lines of texts from a computer screen at home for 2 × 30 min/day, 5 days/week, for 4 weeks. The main outcome variable was reading speed (RS) during reading standardized paragraphs of printed text (IReST) aloud. RS was assessed before training (T1), directly after training (T2) and 4 weeks later (T3). Quality of life (QoL) was assessed by Impact of Visual Impairment (IVI) questionnaire. RESULTS: Vertical training improved RS in the vertical direction significantly. Only patients with right HFD benefited. Horizontal training improved RS in horizontal diection significantly, but much more in patients with left than in those with right HFD. Both effects remained stable at T3. RS during training at the computer improved highly significantly and correlated strongly with RS of printed text (Pearson r= > 0.9). QoL: Vertical training showed a statistically significant improvement in the complete IVI-score, patients with right HFD in the emotional IVI-score. CONCLUSIONS: The improvements of RS were specific for the training. The stable effect indicates that the patients can apply the newly learned strategies to everyday life. The side of the HFD plays an essential role: Left-HFD patients benefitted from horizontal training, right-HFD patients from vertical training. However, the vertical RS did not reach the level of horizontal RS. The study was registered in the German Clinical Trials register (DRKS-ID: DRKS00018843).
